Chimborazo wrote:In an unusual outburst from the Republican side of the House chamber, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted out "You lie" when the president said illegal immigrants would not benefit from his proposals.

I am amazaed how the Republicans and their followers simply cannot control themselves. It figures he is from South Carolina - a bastion of rednecks with a history of descrimination and bigotry. Perhaps he could not control is inner red neck. Dispicable.

While I agree it was a disrespectful outburst and completely unacceptable behavior... the message was correctIt is not about bigotry or discrimination... because a lie is a lie regardless of your ethnicity. The president knew full well that there is no mechanism anywhere in the legislation to keep illegal aliens from benefitting from the program.Highly referenced HR3200 sec 246Unlawful residents cannot receive any federal affordability credits. There is no reference to them not participating in the program

He said it was not in the bill and it is not, he did not lie no matter how much you need to believe that he did.

So do you propose we expand the size and scope of government and increase the deficit by posting immigration officers at every emergency room in the country to ensure that no illegal immigrants are treated?

Or perhaps we can all carry mandatory IDs so that we can receive care in an emergency room and if a doctor or nurse treats a bleeding illegal immigrant they can be prosecuted.

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

HankReardon wrote:cwa,My life IS an example. My health care insurance is trying to deny claims of medical treatments I received for a chronic back problem. I am working wounded, but working. I pay them premiums for five years and I can't get proper medical attention. For shame!

Again, you thumbs-down the ugly truth that you don't want to hear. Typical, indeed. Maybe you should walk, or at least try to, in my shoes.

Dont take it personal. You are dealing with a small minority of nutjobs that have nothing to do all day but sit and listen to Rush and convince themselves Obama is the anti-christ. The same ones that collect their Social Security, have Medicare pay for their Valium, and spend all day and night blogging about Socialism.

They do valium? Oh, I'm thinking they don't do NEARLY enough of it! If they did they wouldn't be so full of hate.

Nixon wrote:Thanks whyisitpolitical. I am glad you got good care, seriously I am. That is what I have heard about Denver Health. But although strep throat is painful, and it is, and one are sick, and they are...it isn't a ER issue although it is treated as such... often...that is much of the issue. And for illegal immigrants, it is a symbol of success to be able to see a doctor-so they like to go see 'em a lot! we pay for it.

And re this,

I tuned in mainly to watch bug-eyed Pelosi act like a human bobble head.She would mindlessly agree anything Obama utters.

Funny, I tuned in briefly just to watch Biden...man o man, the guy is Not A Happy Camper listening to his boss..ever!!!!

For Rodentia , Good list You forgot just one. Treat emergency case illegal immigrants, then deport them as soon as they are stabilized and can be flown out...

Cuz see, we will cover them. That is why South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" after Obama had talked about illegal immigrants. True. It is a lie when Obama says we won't cover them. That part Obama does know about for sure-no maybe's

No---he shouted during a presidential speech because he is an ignorant boor.

thecap0 wrote:When the great speeches in American history are tallied up, President Obama's speech tonight will rank up there with Webster's 7th of March, Lincoln's Second Inaugural, and FDR's First Inaugural.

Magnificent!

Hyperbole?

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Quite Frankly wrote:Still no logical explanation of how you are going to cover more people for more things without raising the costs.

Here’s an IQ test for you, see if you can figure a way to increase coverage and lower costs

a) Lower the use of expensive ER visits by catching more conditions earlier when they are cheaper to treat in lower-cost healthcare settingsb) Shift the costs of treating uninsured people from the current high-overhead insurance-padding and hospital cost-spreading to basic coveragec) Give Medicare, Medicaid, and VA a good cleaning and squeeze some of the waste outd) Increase use of electronic record-keeping to reduce medical mistakes, duplicate testing and treatment, and identifying wasteful practices and joy-riders.e) Stay with everything as it is and hope for the bestf) America has the best and cheapest care dadgummit and nobody dies or goes bankrupt in this fair landg) Huh?

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

If those Democrats were alive today, they would be Republicans, as would Preston Brooks.

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

To my knowledge, the Democrats have never denied their racist past. The fact that they held power in the South for so long primarily by championing racist causes is well-known and undisputed. However, neither party bears any real resemblance today to what they were or what they stood for back then. And while it's true that many southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President. In fact, it was a major factor in the move from a primarily Democratic South to a primarily Republican one.

Why, certainly. The conservatives were the party of the wealthy and the slaveowners, and the liberals were the party of the little people. Always have been, always will be. My in-laws in Arkansas get beside themselves with hilarity whenever the Republicans put out propaganda that says that black people should vote Republican because they're the party that took them out of slavery. The Republican Party today would just as soon put them back into slavery, as they show at every opportunity.

BobbyJohn wrote:

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. --Anatole France

whyisitpolitical wrote:It would all depend on where you shop now I guess. Since I have boycotted Walmart for more than 10 years now, I might actually save some with refunds from the state on savings from Medicaid costs.

That may happen.

Wal-Mart typcially charges less for its goods (not always, but generally) than most of its competitors, and has been a benefit to many people on the lower end of the income scale as a result.

Is there an argument to be made that they have cost a number of jobs due to their practices of buying low-cost goods from other countries? Absolutely.

The question then becomes how do we quantify the overall net impact, or is that even really possible?

Not being an economist I couldn't say, and to complicate it, there are other factors to work in the equation as well. If you have "well" care instead of our current "sick" care system for people in lower income brackets how much would be saved? Take for instance a retail worker gets a yearly mammogram and cancer is found in its infancy versus the worker going to a clinic with a lump that turns out to be stage 3 cancer. How much would be spent in Medicaid dollars for the treatment of advanced cancer, than yearly mammograms and stage 1 cancer?

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

Chimborazo wrote:In an unusual outburst from the Republican side of the House chamber, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted out "You lie" when the president said illegal immigrants would not benefit from his proposals.

I am amazaed how the Republicans and their followers simply cannot control themselves. It figures he is from South Carolina - a bastion of rednecks with a history of descrimination and bigotry. Perhaps he could not control is inner red neck. Dispicable.

While I agree it was a disrespectful outburst and completely unacceptable behavior... the message was correctIt is not about bigotry or discrimination... because a lie is a lie regardless of your ethnicity. The president knew full well that there is no mechanism anywhere in the legislation to keep illegal aliens from benefitting from the program.Highly referenced HR3200 sec 246Unlawful residents cannot receive any federal affordability credits. There is no reference to them not participating in the program

There is already a law in the books that forces various proofs to receive benefits. However, up to now the only effect of this law has been to prevent legal citizens from applying for benefits. Illegal immigrants avoid the government as much as possible for obvious reasons (ie, trying to not get deported) so don't even try applying.

It is certainly not a lie. The bill explicitly does not allow illegal immigrants to receive benefits as your link states. How the heck is that a lie?

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

Here's the part of the history lesson you don't want, maybe that's why you left it out.

After LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act, the racist southern Democrats that apposed it switched over to the REPUBLICAN Party and went on to help Nixon win in 1968 as part of his ‘southern strategy’...ouch!

Technically, Obama is correct in his assertion, but as usual only on the surface.

That specific verbiage is included but moot without any accompanying language mandating verification of citizenship, which is of course is nowhere to be found in any versions of the bill.

And guess what, most states have laws making that simple inquiry a crime.

So in all actuality, the millions of illegal immigrants here in this country WILL BE COVERED under great expense to this countries legitimate inhabitants.

If you thought the revolving emergency room door was spinning out of control now, wait until the grossly underestimated number of 12 million "undocumented workers" suddenly triples, and so will the services they'll demand if this legislation is passed.

Hopefully this lone mans spontaneous and impassioned calling out of the President will finally force the liberal media to once and for all do their job and inform the electorate of the facts, that being Obama's pants are indeed now fully inflamed.

As if.

And what does it tell you when the rigorously scheduled 7:00 PM govt speech on how govt is going to fix health care doesn't start until 7:15?

Last edited by indubitablysnarky on September 9th, 2009, 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JohnGaltLives wrote:Get this through your head! The government will kill free enterprise if this goes through. An entity that does not strive for a profit, but simply sucks the American taxpayer dry will always be at an "advantage", at least to the Obamahhroids who wear the tin foil hats. This should not be allowed to happen! We will grow deeper and deeper in debt and the market will be stifled. Leave my healthcare alone!!!!!

We get it Ayn---we don't believe it, but you've spouted it for so long that we definitely do get it. No need to keep belaboring that particular talking point. S'cuse me now---I gotta run--I hear Wal Mart is having a tinfoil sale.

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

If those Democrats were alive today, they would be Republicans, as would Preston Brooks.

Nice try. Robert Byrd is still serving in the Senate. He voted against that bill.

judging from all the thumbs down... I would be curious if those think that these points are incorrect/unreasonable or if it was the point that the president should be accountable to them?

I didn’t give you a raspberry, but I think you are dead wrong and wrong-headed to boot on some of these.

1. Wanting to see how the money works is fine, but not what can be thrashed out in a speech, so it is unreasonable to criticize that he didn’t do so.2. Ok3. This can’t be a pre-condition of healthcare reform Jesse. This is a job for law-enforcement, not healthcare. You don’t hold up repairing a highway system on the grounds that illegal immigrants might be using it.4. Government has a responsibility to voters and insurance corporations aren’t voters. If the result of a plan that benefits the voter makes a commercial product obsolete then that is a problem for the corporation to solve, not government. We don’t keep gas streetlights in order to keep lamplighters in business. 5. Sure

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

"the claim...that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens." "no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

But Obama says "we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste"

This goes along with Obama's earlier statements that a government panel will tell the doctors and the patient "your mother" what works.

How many times can Obama tell his lies? I don't want Obama's government bureaucrats interfering with my doctor, our relationship and our ability to chose the best course of treatment for me the patient.

Chimborazo wrote:In an unusual outburst from the Republican side of the House chamber, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted out "You lie" when the president said illegal immigrants would not benefit from his proposals.

I am amazaed how the Republicans and their followers simply cannot control themselves. It figures he is from South Carolina - a bastion of rednecks with a history of descrimination and bigotry. Perhaps he could not control is inner red neck. Dispicable.

While I agree it was a disrespectful outburst and completely unacceptable behavior... the message was correctIt is not about bigotry or discrimination... because a lie is a lie regardless of your ethnicity. The president knew full well that there is no mechanism anywhere in the legislation to keep illegal aliens from benefitting from the program.Highly referenced HR3200 sec 246Unlawful residents cannot receive any federal affordability credits. There is no reference to them not participating in the program

There is already a law in the books that forces various proofs to receive benefits. However, up to now the only effect of this law has been to prevent legal citizens from applying for benefits. Illegal immigrants avoid the government as much as possible for obvious reasons (ie, trying to not get deported) so don't even try applying.

It is certainly not a lie. The bill explicitly does not allow illegal immigrants to receive benefits as your link states. How the heck is that a lie?

It is a white lie in that everyone knows that without any eligibility requirement, illegal aliens will apply for benefits in the same fashion that they apply for jobs.

If your logic held water, we wouldn't have so many illegal workers living and earning a living in our country.

decalvas wrote:I guess it's better to have a representative from one of the slave states heckling a speaker than to have him beating him with a cane, as one of his illustrious Palmetto State forbears did once on the Senate floor. Our history loving president would do well to remember that the violence and intimidation from the reactionaries only stopped in the 1850s and 60s when the progressives showed that they would fight also, unfortunately they didn't follow through and finish the job so we're still dealing with that...single payer for all is the only thing that will work, hope we don't go one hundred fifty years and counting on that too...

While we're giving history lessons, can you tell the class which party controlled the South while most of the things you reference were occurring? Or which party provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Hint: one of the chief opponents in the Senate was the father of a recent Democratic VP.)

I don't think most Democrats really want to have that sort of history lesson out there.

If those Democrats were alive today, they would be Republicans, as would Preston Brooks.

Nice try. Robert Byrd is still serving in the Senate. He voted against that bill.

Attempts at revising history aren't going to fly.

Hey look...one guy!

And what is the part of the country that is now most predominately Republican?